Extremists, Atheists, and Jesus Freaks.

In previous articles having to do with politics, I have described myself as apathetic, or left or right depending on where the jury is from. I hate all politics, so I could be summed up as fair and mentally unbalanced.

What about religion? The same rules apply.

If anyone is familiar with the George Carlin routine [link rated R for language] about religion, it involves him talking about the Invisible Man in the Sky, and He Wants MONEY. When I first saw it, I thought it was hilarious. A nice little parody of the Catholic church when he was growing up.

Then I discovered that it's what he believed. Him, Bill Maher, and a whole bunch of other people.

Now, it could be that I'm a snob. My BA in philosophy might as well have been in Catholic philosophy. My father with the PhD in catholic Philosophy taught me more about the faith than my Catholic schools ever did. I get the impression that if my education mirrored George Carlin's, I'd turn out much like him. I would like to think that I could do my own research to learn what was going on, but who knows.

Atheists do not annoy me. Seriously. Two of my friends are atheists. One was my best friend before she went crazy with extremist politics—I was going crazy with PhD studies at the time, so that didn't help either.

My other atheist acquaintance is the primary artist for this website, Matt. He says he's a militant atheist. I disagree. If only because I've met militant atheists, and they have hated my guts for no other reason than I am religious. They couldn't do something reasonable like get to know me and my personality quirks before they hated me.

And I love those hate-filled nutjobs. Truly I do. They're amusing. If only because they spend a lot of them telling me what I think. It's sort of like my political article. I try to tell people what I believe politically, and from one sentence (usually a half sentence) they leap to amazing conclusions about what I think, what I believe, and why I believe it. They're funny as heck.

Then again, I may have a strange sense of humor.

So, what annoys me? If I blame George Carlin on bad education, and Bill Maher on being … himself, really … and I find Anti-Catholic twits a source of amusement, then what exactly would set me off in terms of religion?

1) Anti-Theists: a segment of the population that isn't talked about very often, Anti-Theists are exactly as the title says, they are against believers. My friend Matt may believe that religions are stupid, or that the bulk of religious people are stupid, but he doesn't hate my guts because of my faith. There are folks who have suggested that children should be taken away from believers just because they believe; or that Christians should be charged with child abuse because they tell their children that Jesus Loves Them. Anti-Theists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris believe that those who believe in God are dangerous, even criminal. I congratulate Dawkins, Harris and their ilk on making discrimination and bigotry acceptable.

2) The Politically Correct. The Transportation Safety Authority is on everyone's list recently, so I see no reason to leave them out of my list of irritants. Recently, a front group for the terrorist organization the Muslim Brotherhood had trained the Transportation Security Officers of Los Angeles International Airport in how to be “sensitive” to members of Islam. I particularly enjoyed where “if a woman wears hijab and needs a secondary screening she should be screened in a private area by a female TSO officer.”

I like the headgear on the TSA offical.

However, they can give patdowns to nuns in public.

My main quibble there is that they can either accommodate all religions equally, or they can leave religion out of the equation. It strikes me as racist and bigoted: Why be sensitive to the religious of Islam and not Christians? Are Muslims somehow more sensitive than Christians or even Jews?

Again, it may just be me, but when I'm told “We have to give Muslims special treatment,” what I hear is: “We're going to patronize the poor sensitive little darlings, pat them on the head, and accommodate their ignorance so we can show how enlightened we are.”

Like I said, I find it demeaning and racist. It could just be me.

3) Anti-Christmas people. Fine, you don't like commercialism, good for you, neither do I. If you actually believe that Christmas is the season for love, peace on Earth, etc, and you dislike the crass commercialism of the season, I'm with you. Let's get together and sing Christmas carols down the street.

If you think that my wishing you “Merry Christmas” somehow means that I am demeaning you, you are an idiot. And you are probably looking to be offended. I say Happy Hannukah, and I say Merry Christmas, and I might even be persuaded to say happy Kwansa if I ever find somebody who follows that particular day. If you do not like it, feel free to complain. The complaint department in on the right

4) People who should know better, but lie. Earlier posts in this blog about the origins of the novel have mentioned how I came across people who researched on the Pius XII situation, noted the books they used, and spun a yawn that directly contradict the facts. Liars with an agenda … they tend to irritate me.

5) Jesus Freaks. You know who I mean. The people I mentioned in a previous post, where they're not interested in what you believe in, or what you have to say, they just wish to talk you to death with whatever rote lines of dialogue they have. They start with “Have you accepted Jay-sus Christ your own personal savior?” And, regardless of what you answer, they will push on as though you haven't spoken. Then we whip out the tazer and make them slightly crispy. I prefer atheists like Daniel Dennett. He's at least reasonable. I prefer atheists like Matt, or like my former friend Colleen; they may not like religion, but they usually point at reasonable problems.

In short, I dislike the willfully-ignorant and the mean-spirited. 

But, I suppose it comes down to "Who doesn't?"

Giffords returns to congress. Insanity still wins out.

Back in January, I had written an article on the Arizona shooting, where lunatic Jared Loughner shot at Gabrielle Giffords. I never published it, since I really didn't want to get into politics at the time.

However, after the articles of yesterday, it's a little late for that.  Not to mention, Gabrielle Giffords returned to her congressional seat last night

So, below the break, you will essentially see a snapshot of January 12, 2011 (thank God for blog date/time stamping).  Remember that far back? How there was requests for "civility" in all things?

How did that work out?

Now, if anyone would like to send in a request, or suggestions for topics that are not politically-based, please feel free to send them in.  I'd really rather not have another week like this for at least three more months.

The January 12th article begins ......

Now.

The "Ground Zero" Mosque. Or: Why I hate Politics.

Thriller writers seem to be dragged into a lot of politics. Vince Flynn, because his protagonist is a government counter terrorist agent; Lee Child, because his protagonist is a former Military Policeman, and deals with a lot of army politics.

I personally hate politics, but, since I've already started by having a discussion on the Church, the Pope, and handling priests, I figured I'm due for another round....

Some may not know, and fewer may care, but there is talk of a mosque going up in downtown Manhattan, on what is currently a vacant lot, or a giant hole in the ground, depending on your point of view. Yes, someone wants to put a mosque at Ground Zero, the site of the New York City 9-11 attack.

There are multiple points of view on the matter, but I would like to address the one that no one else seems to be considering: The Muslim point of view.

Yes, I know I'm Catholic, but I'm turning on my empathy for five minutes. And it's not too hard. For example, we can break down the Islamic world into three camps: those who want to kill us, those who don't care, and those who rather like America and who have either already moved here (or want to).

From the “kill them all” camp (terrorists, supporters, sympathizers, Ron Kuby), I can only imagine a mosque over the scene of the biggest, most successful terrorist attack on American soil would be like planting a flag over captured enemy territory. From their point of view, a mosque would be a great idea, the bigger the better. Party time..

From the “I don't care” camp, I could only imagine a reaction of “What the....?” This mosque is going to be fourteen stories tall in the middle of downtown Manhattan— bigger than St. Patrick's Cathedral. Nearby areas consist of Greenwich Village, Chinatown, Wall Street, and a very Little Italy. Now, unless the Village has undergone a drastic demographic shift, or the official religion of China has become Islam, I can't imagine too many people going to this great big mosque. There's a heavy Muslim population in New York... in Brooklyn, on Atlantic Avenue. I would imagine that someone, somewhere out there, is wondering “Whose bright idea was this? And why couldn't we get them to build this near a major Muslim population center?”

The “moderate Islam” we hear so much about, who like America, hate terrorists, and came to this country to FLEE customs in the homeland, I can imagine being disturbed. I know that if my coreligionists had launched a terrorist attack on my country of residence, I would want as much distance between my faith and the attack site as possible. I could imagine this side of the Islamic spectrum viewing the mosque like the terrorist viewpoint, as a flag of victory, and consider that a very bad, disturbing thing.

Someone is going to try to put any of the above statements into my mouth and proclaim them mine. So I'll make my viewpoint clear...

In the biggest attack on American soil, Pearl Harbor, we have a war memorial. One of the ships that was irrevocable lost is still there, hull partially out of the water, one drop of oil coming up every minute or so. We did not put a Shinto shrine. With another slaughter, Gettysburg, it's also a war memorial, of sorts. We did not put up a Christian church; I believe there are smaller, individual crosses for the deaths of people who all happened to be one variety of Christian or another, but no massive Cathedral (I couldn't find one, feel free to check).

It isn't possible to make a war memorial in lower Manhattan on the scope of either of the above mentioned, since the real estate rates are somewhere in high orbit. If you built another World Trade Center with a war memorial in the lobby, and antiaircraft batteries on the roof, and make the rest of the building dedicated to standard business practices, I think that would cover all bases. The original lobby was huge, and all the things you need for a memorial are already constructed: I recall that we have a Vietnam-style wall with the names of those lost, we have a cross made out of I-beams that was put up by the construction workers (I would put it there less for religious reasons and more for the fact that it was created from pieces of the Twin Towers), and believe we have a statue of the iconic image of the three firemen raising the flag at Ground Zero. You get a memorial to the dead, patriotism, and a physical piece of what was lost.

As for the mosque itself, I'm more curious about other things...

(1) Are there really so many Muslims in lower Manhattan that we need something the size of a small skyscraper? If you take the terrorist attack out of the equation, building the Mosque anywhere in lower Manhattan isn't the brightest move. When the biggest groups are the Chinese, Wall Street, and the people of the Village, it's a bloody stupid idea.

(2) If there aren't “so many Musilms”, whose bright idea what this? I can tell you people who support it, but I can't tell you who's funding it. It's possible it's funded by someone who doesn't know New York City demographics, or someone with cross-cultural public relations problems, or someone who really does want to plant a flag on Ground Zero.

(3) Do American Muslims really want to put a mosque that close to an area of mass slaughter? I would think that would be up there with putting a temple on top of a graveyard.

(4) Before everyone plans for the war memorial, the mosque, or anything else, I would like the politicians to do one thing: BUILD US ANOTHER WTC.... I don't care if it's the 1776-foot tall “Freedom Tower”, or if they just build the originals again.

My position is simple: it's been nine years and three Governors since we lost the World Trade Center, and construction should have been started at least five years ago (count four years of red tape). Someone, get to work....

Oh, and no matter what designs are picked, I want the battery of Surface-to-Air-Missiles... and a giant sign that says “TRY AGAIN. PLEASE.”

Please feel free to comment; I put in as much data as I could find, and everything I can think of without going into a rant. If I have any Muslim fans of the book, I want to hear from you in case I missed something; like I said, I turned my empathy on for five minutes, so the above analysis of opinion is, essentially, a guess.

UPDATE [1-31- 2011]

And, maybe, just maybe, someone should tell this Imam how close he is to the village before he starts talking like this.

The Politics of A Pius Man.

Irony sucks.



In my life, I have written nearly two dozen novels. Science fiction. Hostage novels. Comedy thrillers. Plain old, simple, straightforward shoot-em-up thrillers. One vampire novel. Murder mysteries set at a high school summer camp (title: Summer Death Camp).



And then there's A Pius Man. It was strange for a number of reasons. It basically took every single character I ever created and threw them together in a sprawling, two-pound, eight hundred page epic. There was theology, philosophy, liberty, love, marriage, death, and a fairly large war somewhere in the middle.



It was also the most political novel I had written.



Seriously, this book was all over the place with political topics. Racism, homosexuality, globalization, secularization, warfare, a just peace, when peace is just another word for surrender, torture, the International Community, terrorism, abortion … you name it, it was in the book.



Here's the irony: I hate politics. Hate 'em to death with a fiery passion. I think it's narrow-minded, more dogmatic than the Vatican, and more hypocritical than Voltaire saying “destroy the Church” on one hand, while taking daily communion in his private chapel. Look at the list above: racism and homosexuality are political topics. It should be simple: racism bad; who cares who you have sex with, have a nice day. But, no, they must be politicized.



Like I said, I hate politics, and what it does to normal, sane people the moment someone brings it up.



So, of course, when I finally come close to having something published, it's A Pius Man.


Like I said, irony sucks.

Unfortunately, politics are unavoidable when looking at the discussion of Pope Pius XII during the holocaust. [For those of you just tuning in, the “discussion” is summarized here]

No matter what side of the Pius discussion one finds themselves on, politics follows. While not perfectly uniform, the discussion breaks down along political lines.

Leftists take the anti-Pius side, right wingers take the pro-Pius side. Leftists use it to bash a centralized church with a strong hierarchical structure, with a goal of making the Catholic church like, say, the Unitarians (only a slight exaggeration, depending on which Leftist one is talking about).

On the right, you have a lot of conservative folks who make a case for Pius XII's sainthood.

I know what you're thinking: if this breaks down along political lines, you can tell exactly how the book will end depending on what my personal politics are. What are my politics?

That depends on where the jury is sitting.

In New York I'm a right-wing, blood-thirsty maniac because ... I think a blanket gay marriage license is a bad idea. Mainly because, in the first wave issued in the Northeast, there were a large segment that took the newly issued licenses, and went to their local church and demanded to be married –whether or not the church in question allowed gay marriage.

In the South, I'm a blood-thirsty left wing psychotic because … I think “marriage” is a religious term. Atheists go to a justice of the peace and enter into civil unions, NOT marriages. A civil union is a state function. Issue licenses for civil unions to BOTH atheists and gays, then the latter group can take it to a church that allows gay marriage, and they can all live happily every after and leave my church the hell alone. I'm not interested in burning gays at the stake, and I don't care if one is gay, straight or “flaming,” have a nice day.

In New York, I'm an evil righty because … I supported G.W. Bush going into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the war on terror in general.



In REALLY red states I'm an evil Leftist because … I would have supported Clinton going into Iraq. And I wanted someone to go into the Sudan before Darfur became a buzz word. And I hated almost everything else President Bush ever did.



In New York, I am conservative because … I think abortion and contraceptives are generally a Bad Idea.



In Pat Robertson's district, I am a bleeding heart Liberal …. because I'm not going to say “You had an abortion, therefore you are immediately going to Hell! MUAHAHAHA”


In New York, I am a psychotic Conservative … because I think the government should get the hell outta my life. Just protect my stuff, my neighbor's stuff, and leave me the hell alone.



In the more bleeding red states, I am an evil Liberal … because I'd want a Republican government to get the hell outta my life. Just protect my stuff, my neighbor's stuff, and leave me the hell alone.

My politics boils down to, “There are things I don't like, wouldn't recommend, but I'm not issuing automatic condemnations.”  Politically, I'm somewhere in the middle. Which, in politics, means I'm in the middle of the crossfire.

So, what does this mean about A Pius Man? Don't be mistaken, I do take a side. I believe my conclusions are obvious basic on the facts I have researched. However, the political portions of the book are discussions, not rants. And the politics are driven more by the characters than by me.

And the politics of the characters in A Pius Man?

Sean A.P. Ryan. Mercenary. Believes in the free market system, heavy weaponry, and grew up in Hollywood. When queried on his political affiliations, he would say, “I believe people should be able to own marijuana and machine guns. I will laugh at the marijuana crowd, but if I have my guns, I'm happy.”

Scott “Mossad” Murphy. He works for Israel, usually among Palestinians. Moved from America to join the Mossad after 9-11. His politics: “I believe in the power of waterboarding. But I'd sooner talk terrorists to death. It's more painful in the long run. When you can talk them into revealing everything they know, kill them, move up the chain of command. Repeat until they're willing to be peaceful, or they are peacefully dead.”

Giovanni Figlia. His father was blown up by a Red Army faction in the 1980s, so he has a grudge against extreme, gun-toting Leftists. Aside from that, his politics are: “I have to protect the most powerful religious leader on the planet, and he insists on pissing off nearly one-third of the world's population. Leave me alone and let me do my job.”

Pope Pius XIII (Born: Joshua Kutjok): Hard right-wing. Has all but declared war on the Sudan. Thoroughly dislikes tyrannies, which means North Korea and China dislike him right back. “I am against abortion, gays being married in my church, and contraceptives are against the religion. Then again, you should only have sex with the person you marry, so abortion and contraceptives shouldn't be needed. However, my homeland of Sudan is going through thirty years of religious and ethnic warfare, I have better things to do than deal with whining hedonists!”

Father Francis Williams, S.J.: “I'm a Jesuit who is trying to transfer into the Opus Dei. I speak six languages and I can kill people with my rosary beads … what was your question?”

Maureen McGrail. Interpol. “I'm too busy being shot at to have a political opinion. Leave me alone.”

Secret Service Agent Wilhelmina Goldberg: As a special adviser to anyone who wants the Secret Service to audit their security, she has been all over, and her political opinion is simple. “At the end of the day, America looks good by comparison.”

Hashim Abasi: Oxford Educated in global politics. Egyptian police officer. His name translates into “Stern Crusher of Evil.” His father died while tinkering with a vest for a suicide bomber. He mentions having a wife, but it sounds like she was stoned to death. No one asks what his politics are.

The above characters have more influence over how the political discussions go than I do. So, the topics will be... interesting.

"Where do they get those wonderful toys?" The Weapons of A Pius Man, an Illustrated Guide

The Weapons of A Pius Man: An Illustrated Guide

Osama's death. One week later.

This is my original article about my thoughts on the death of Osama the week after he died. I'm not sure they've changed much....




If you are sick and tired of listening to anything to do with Osama bin Laden, I recommend my short story "One Way to Stay Out of Jail." It has action, humor, and staying one step ahead of both cops and robbers.  Enjoy.

Now, onto this week ......

As more and more details leak out about Osama bin Laden's death, the situation becomes more, um, interesting.

I will, for the moment, ignore conflicting reports.  One report had Osama using a wife for a human shield. Another said he was simply shot outright, and the wife was still alive. We had help from Pakistan. Pakistan knew nothing about it. Pakistan supports our efforts, Pakistan threatens to blow us out of the sky if we ever do that again .....  One report by Eric Holder said that bin Laden's assassination was in "national self-defense." Bin Laden wasn't olding launch codes to a nuclear arsenal, and, to some accounts, didn't even have a weapon inside the mansion he was living in. If this was "national self defense," it must have been a "preemptive strike."  Or it was simply an assassination. So, we'll see exactly how the details shape up in the long run.


Fun Facts: Assassination

When I say assassination, I don't mean that as a derogatory term. There is a defense in Texas that is known as "he needed killing." I'm relatively good with that idea. I'm going to cry no tears for bin Laden. I personally believe all life is sacred up to the point when one person desecrates that sanctity. I don't care if you call it the code of Hammurabi, justice, revenge, or retribution (meaning "to repay," or "to pay someone what they are owed," or "payback"). My preference, as stated last week, is that we might have taken bin Laden alive. He had intelligence we could have found a use for.

However, I think justice was served. As I noted last week, Osama himself would have been put to death under Koranic law, if some people weren't just using it for their own convenience. And in a modern fashion ... where would we have put him? Solitary confinement in Guantanamo Bay for the rest of his life?  Maybe in general population somewhere in New York ...

Given those options, two to the head is the most merciful anyone could have been to him.

What is odd for me is the general reaction.  While it is not V-AQ day (as opposed to V-E or V-J day), I have the feeling this is as close as we're going to get. There will be no signing of a peace treaty with al-Qaeda, they keep saying as much.  So, the War on Terror will probably end with what's left of al-Qaeda hiding in the mountains in a few more years, and no one will notice.

German's Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has taken fire because she was "glad" the mission was a success. Some Europeans castigated her because the attitude wasn't "Christian" -- which is odd coming from a continent that told Pope John Paul II to shove Christianity where the sun don't shine.  And they're obviously ignorant of Christianity, since St. Thomas Aquinas even admitted that there is an argument for tyrannicide. And since Osama was the tyrant of his own little terrorist empire, I'm thinking he qualifies.

Germany's Siegfried Kauder said "I would not have formulated it in that way. Those are thoughts of revenge that one should not harbor. That is from the Middle Ages."  So is Maga Carta, movable type, an a whole bunch of other nifty stuff. Call it the "Dark Ages" all you like, buddy, but ignoring everything that happened from the fall of Rome to Rousseau is to miss a lot of stuff. Then again, he also said it was against international law .... and that the UN should create international law.  When international law is created, Mr. Kauder, get back to us.

Even the Dali Lama said it was okay the nail the bastard.

Fun Facts: Waterboarding.

How many people has the United States waterboarded? With all of the political jabbering, I figured that the CIA must have waterboarded every last person in Guantanamo Bay, and every prisoner in Iraq, Afghanistan, and whoever we could kidnap.

The final number .... Three.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.(The CIA says that KSM was waterboarded over 183 times. KSM himself says it was only 12 ... someone's math is screwed up.)

With a little research, I've discovered that nobody of consequence on the Right has argued that waterboarding, or any other form of coercive interrogation, should be even the first recourse in interrogation (or at all with legitimate prisoners of war). It's something in an interrogator’s toolkit for hard-core senior terrorist leaders, that's about it. And when I say nobody of consequence, I mean no one from the head of the RNC, down to friggin Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

The usual critics of waterboarding have insisted that the tradeoffs involved don’t need to be debated, because coercive interrogation never yields any information of any use in any situation....

By waterboarding in 2007, the US got the name of a certain bin Laden courier. It was by following this courier that the US was able to find bin Laden.

So, never say never.

I don't know if you've ever been waterboarded. It's simple. Basically, put yourself into a position where you are upside down, or at least slanted on an angle so you're close enough. Pour water down your nose. Not a lot, maybe an ounce or two. Breathe through your mouth. Congratulations, you've been waterboarded. I've waterboarded myself once, and possibly more than the time and water limit suggested by CIA guidelines. It sucks, but it's not lethal, and there is no possibility of drowning.

Yes, I waterboarded myself for research. I'm a little wierd.



Fun Facts: Iraq.

 Okay, KSM was waterboarded into getting us the courier who we followed to Osama. Iraq was an utter waste of time ....

Umm.....

According to Wikileaks, there was a fellow named Hassan Ghul (does anyone else want his first name to be Naz?) who added the final bit of intelligence that led us to the courier, and to Osama.

 Where did we get this Ghul?  Iraq.

Damnit, more politics.

I know I'm going to get branded as being a member of some sort of right-wing organization, be it the Taxed Enough Already party, the Republican, the Glenn Beck party, what have you.  I've made my political statement, so you can label me what you will.

 I am a very traditional person.  You could say I follow the Geneva convention, which states that illegal combatants have no rights.  However, that is a position under the traditional rules of war. Anyone who works for the enemy, who operates in your terrotory, and does not wear a traditional uniform, used to be given the label of "spy," and was eligible for a quick ticket to the afterlife.  And I don't mean a trial, I mean a field execution.  The traditional rules of war made certain everyone played by the rules, because violation meant death.

During the Cold War, we developed the concept of spy swaps. Everyone came home alive. But that was during a non-shooting war, and, somehow, those rules have expanded to every aspect of war.

 

I've been told by people I respect, namely Rebekah Hendershot, of Masks, that the United States is the civilized country, therefore we should give terrorists trials, and all the rights afforded to US citizens under the constitution. Considering that every other country on the planet does not extend their rights to non-citizens, I think that's a little daft, but what the hell.

The problem is that we it is a historical oddity to give trials to soldiers for acts of war. War criminals, even in Nazi Germany, were mostly civilians, or operating non-military organizations. We tried people who operated death camps, not soldiers fighting against other soldiers.

Most terrorists are not soldiers. They are illegal combatants. Had the Iraqi army stood and fought during the Iraq war in 2003, they would have fought other soldiers, and no one would have been prosecuted for defense against an incoming army.... unless, of course, they spent their time under Saddam killing unarmed civilians, in which case, they were screwed either way.

But I'm the sort of person who waterboards myself for research, so I'm a different sort of daft.

Personally....

Back to bin Laden a moment.

Can I at least be glad that we have checked Osama off the "to do list"? My first thought is more a matter of "About bloody time. We got the sucker. Whew."  Can I be glad that he won't be planning anything more? He won't be killing anyone else anytime soon? Assuming he's been doing anything lately? That this is the closest to justice he's ever going to get?

Though I am curious. How much of this exuberance is that he's dead, and how much is V-J day, 2011? How many are under the mistaken impression that his death means the end of every terrorist extremist psycho out there? Because that overblown rhetoric is the real danger. "Osama is dead, the threat is over." If that's the case, reality is going to become most unpleasant.  It's not V-J day. Or V-AQ day. It's a good start, though.

El-Alamein was the middle point of World War II, when things started to look good for the Allies. What Churchill said "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

The end of Osama is not the end. But this may, hopefully, be the beginning of the end.

And, while it will not be V-AQ day for at least a few more years, I suspect this will be the only time to have a party. Osama's death is a milestone. I'd have a party if he was captured. That he is taken off of the chessboard of the war is a reason for partying, no matter the method.

Osama is now a martyr.  But martyrs can't release video tape.



Postscript

Last week Nancy Pelosi credited President George W. Bush for getting Osama bin Laden.

He was castigated for allowing waterboarding.... It got the name of the courier.

He was castigated for taking his eye off the ball and going into Iraq. It gave the US the "linchpin" to getting close to the courier.

Nancy Pelosi is saying good things about George Bush.... It may be the end of the world.

DragonCon 2010, Day 1 Report.

Dragoncon Report 2010, Day 1

Music blog: Lindsey Stirling, epic violin

If you don't know from the violinist Lindsey Stirling, you're missing out.



But, since even I only heard of her about a week or two ago, you probably haven't missed too much. Thankfully, she's up on Youtube.



Short version: I've never seen a woman dance and jump around while playing a violin.



The long version: try this video.  If you're not familiar with the tune, it's the main theme to the Legend of Zelda video games. If you have no idea of what a "Zelda" is, don't worry about it. It's fantasy, and it usually involves swords. Just play the video





Of the various and sundry videos Stirling has up, it was hard to pick what else I wanted to post....

However, this one has her moonwalking as she plays the violin.

Enjoy.

Music Blog: Video Game Music Mass Effect.

I decided to take a little break from Tom Smith's amusing filk songs, and figured I'd go for some nice, quick action music clips from the video game Mass Effect.



So, sit back, relax, and if you're at work, get the headphones. It's going to be fun.

Coulton and muppets.... What?

Skullcrusher Mountain, by Jonathan Coulton ....



This was first introduced to me by Rebekah Hendershot, of Masks.... it's a story of an evil genius in love....







And now, the antidote ... well, the parody: Muppet Laboratories



 

I think that's enough for now, don't you?

How I spent my 9-11: a self defense review.

I've had two previous self defense reviews. One, when I first started my job at Examiner.com, and another a little more recently, which covered current events all over the place.

This one may be a little more laid back.

In retrospect, I should have mentioned the Krav Maga seminar, on September 11th, 2011. But, to be honest, I didn't know how many people here would have been interested.

However, never fear: I did a four-part review of it for Examiner.com anyway.

There was one part that reviewed how to use The Stop Kick to nail someone charging a third party, even though they may be armed. Trust me, I got kicked in the chest so often, my teeth rattled, and I had a shield.

You do this to an actual attacker, it's gonna suck to be them.

Then there was the choke... in this case, "the choke" is just a simple matter of t-rex arms.... you'll see what I mean.

And, of course, there is the inevitable gun defense.

And learning how to take down a guy holding someone hostage.

And, there's the latest in fashion: Bulletproof clothing.

When Examiner.com suggested I try something to do with 9-11 .... well, I did my best, and called it, simply, New York ten years after 9/11. Original, no?

Some people like to discuss how they can be perfectly safe ... I mention it here: How can I be perfectly safe? Again, another original title.

I briefly talked about How to spot a concealed weapon, a fun little article.

And ... well, there was a little incident lately in NYC's West Indian Parade, which led me to discuss Surviving a shootout, and an encounter with the NYPD

That one's a long story, I think.

And, that is it.

Although it has occurred to me: if anyone has an actual question about self-defense, feel free to ask in the comments below.  I'll be sure to try and answer you.

Be safe, all.

A Long Overdue Rant: Sex.

An atheist friend of mine just blamed the Catholic Church for AIDS in Africa.


For anyone who wants a footnote, read Laurie Garret's Betrayal of Trust, where you realize: crap, Africa really doesn't like condoms.  Like men everywhere, they bad mouth condoms as belittling their machismo.  And, in a country where AIDS is as prevalent as it is, that just puts more bullets in the revolver for the Russian roulette.  In Africa, they don't like, want, or use condoms. Which means they're like men everywhere, with a high risk factor.

Africa is also a country where they had a "cure" for AIDS -- they had to sleep with a virgin, the younger the better.  Which led to more babies being sexually abused than in all the Catholic parishes in all the world.  But why bother with little, inconvenient details.

See, North America isn't the only continent that can have whole pockets of a cultural wasteland.

Uganda seems to be the only people who have used anti-AIDS measures to any great effectiveness.  And part of that is .... wait for it ... abstinence!  Gee, why couldn't the Catholic Church think of that?

Oh, wait, it did.

But, no, the Catholic Church is responsible because they're against condoms!

Um, I'm sorry, let's face it, if no one will listen to the Catholic Church badmouth premarital sex, why the hell does anyone think that people will listen about on condoms?

Can't you just see the conversation now?

The Church: "Don't screw around before you're married."
People in general: "Oh, who wants to listen to that crap? Sex is fun!"
The Church: "Don't use condoms, because sex, sanctified within the sacrament of marriage, is for procreation, as well as for an expression of love and for fun."
People in general: "No condoms, got it!"

Do people really think it works like that?  Seriously?  Beuller? Beuller?

And the Pope himself recently mentioned that, if you have an STD, condom use is actually a positive sign: if someone is using a condom while carrying an STD, that means that you are actively being responsible for your condition.

As Pope Benedict said, it's like robbing a bank.  The Church would like you do not do it, but if you're going to do it, carrying a gun without bullets means you at least care about human life, if not human property.

But to screw around and say that you're being a good Catholic because you're not using a condom?  That means you are a hypocrite, and that you will latch onto any doctrine, rumor, or halfway believable "truth" that will let you screw around without protection.

Just wait until they hear about "free love."

A long overdue rant, Part 1, Economy.

Liberal mob psychology 101 isn't about liberals, it's about mobs. Ann Coulter's latest book Demonic says they're one and the same thing, but let's skip that theory for a moment.

Today, I've had someone whine to me about how he won't get a pay raise for his government job because the eeeeevilllll Republicans want to give tax breaks to the rich.

How about this: since you're employed, friend, how about you don't air your grievances on Facebook -- when you have friends who are unemployed! 

How about you don't complain about getting a pay raise when government employees make more than the private sector!


How about you don't complain about the evil rich republican supports when most of Wall Street votes democrat!

I spend about nine hours a day (9-6), Monday - Thursday, on job searches online, at practically any job search site on the web that I don't have to pay for.  I spend Friday-Sunday working on a professional blog that's as non-political as I can make it, and it's all about getting me published as an author of fiction, and it has ads that I hope to get some revenue from.

I write self defense articles for examiner.com, and hope enough people click on them so I can get money.

And, of course, you have the Occupy Wall Street morons demanding that the government essentially take over the economy, so the poor little darlings can basically get a pension while they look for a job that'll take them and their liberal arts degree in something completely useless.

A lovely mob who demands that everything change just to suit them.  Let's destroy the way the economy works.  Because no one in all 30,000 years of cultural conventions never thought of this! We must be smarter than everyone who came before.

Answer: it's been done before, schmucks.  See: Soviet Union.

Christmas charity opportunity.

Karina Fabian, Catholic author,  has asked me to post this.  So I have.  Enjoy.

No, I didn't say a lot. But I think the below will do, don't you think?

Dear friends and 
readers, This winter, I have two things in my
heart and on my mind:  caring for those less fortunate than me (or indeed, much
of the world) and my DragonEye, PI stories.  For Christmas, I’m combining them
and would like to share them with you. Those of you who are “Vern Fans,” know
about my dragon who works in our world as a private investigator, and his
partner, Sister Grace, a mage and nun in the Faerie Catholic Church.  They’ve
saved the worlds and their friends in numerous stories and novels.  Last year, I
wrote a story for Flagship about their first Christmas together.  Not
only is Grace struggling with the Mundane idea of Christmas, but their home is
threatened by a land developer who wants to tear down the entire neighborhood
and make a mall.  When the Ghosts of Christmas come to visit him, however, Vern
and Grace have to solve the mystery before the Christmas Spirits become Angels
of Death. I have revised and am publishing
“Christmas Spirits” as a serial story to raise funds for Food for the Poor. This
is a wonderful charity that helps people in impoverished nations help
themselves. It allows donators to choose their gifts--whether rice for a family
for a month, school supplies, livestock, tools or even houses.

I'm
asking that you please check out the story, and, if you enjoy it and want to see
more, that you donate even a dollar to the cause. Also, if you enjoy the story,
let your friends know. I'll post every Tuesday and Thursday as the donations
come in.   Right now, we have raised enough to send a family 20 baby chicks and
are halfway to a fruit tree in addition.  Vern would like to send them a cow (he
is a dragon, after all), but Sister Grace and I are dreaming of raising enough
to buy someone a home.  Can you imagine giving a HOUSE for Christmas?  Will you
help? Find the story at http://christmasspirits.karinafabian.com. 
You can also get to it via my website, http://fabianspace.com.  Look under the
Christmas dragon for the link.   You can learn more about Food for the Poor at
http://www.foodforthepoor.org.

Thanks for your attention!

Karina Fabian 

A self defense discussion

I have a new job.

Over at Examiner.com, they cover a lot of interesting little topics. Religion, celibacy, and, of all things, self-defense.

Guess which job I volunteered for.

As part of the somewhat new direction I'm taking the site for A Pius Man, I thought it might be interesting to do a series of "fighting and writing." And, since I'm going to do a few articles a week for The Examiner, well, I won't be running out of material anytime soon.

Stories posted thus far on Examiner.com have been the following:

Should I take a martial arts class for self defense? Which one? The answer is something you've probably never heard of.... unless, maybe, you're Israeli military. Ever hear of Krav Maga?

Osama Is Dead: Requiem for a Terrorist

I originally wrote this blog after the death of an evil little bastard.  Some details are now known to be incorrect. But I'm leaving them to show you my mindset at the time.

***

Osama bin Laden is dead.

Last week, a man who has been a plague on mankind was put out of our misery by some US Navy Seals via a gunshot to the head; if I hear correctly, Osama had been using a woman as a human shield at the time.  It was a fitting end -- Osama wanted a culture that would require women to wear nothing but burka and veil, an outfit that would make a Catholic nun look like she was wearing a slinky dress in comparison, and he died hiding behind a woman.

At the very end, the man went out showing his true colors.  He could send the poor, the desparate, the starving, and the mildly insane to their deaths, but he couldn't try for a standup fight with soldiers.  Considering he came in at the last minute of the Soviet war with Afghanistan, and made himself into the John Kerry of the Talbian ("I fought in Afghanistan against the first Great Satan!"  When he fired a few rounds at the Soviet's retreating backs).  In the end, he went out like a cowardly movie villain, and the noble hero gets to make an impressive killshot.

Osama bin Laden is dead .... Now what?

To start with?  There are going to be numerous thriller authors in mourning, seeking a new bad guy. The fiction post-Saddam Hussein went into a tailspin, trying to come up with someone else to beat up on.

After that, there's a little issue of where he was found: in a mansion, in a city just outside of Islamabad.  A town filled with miltary personnel.  Conflicting reports state that the Pakistanis were in on the kill, others state that they were informed after the fact.  In either event, the man was living there for at least six months. Someone is going to want to explain that.  I suspect there will be several some bodies on the ground, with their heads in a separate corner of the room.

I am a little sad that Osama is dead.  Why?  Because I think there will be people who will use Osama's death to say "Great, the war on Terror is over, let's go home and pretend this never happened."  Which would be nice if Osama didn't have, you know, an entire terrorist network.  And if Osama has really been a figurehead for years, as some have suggested, then the work isn't over.  It's a good start though.

Also, I'm even more worried about the intelligence issue.  If I were in charge of intelligence on this, the press release about Osama's death would be ... premature.  I would have sent in SEALS with orders to capture bin Laden alive, then ship him off to one of the fabled "Black Sites," where he could be interrogated for as long as possible.  There are that state that the interrogated would lie through their teeth; to start with, perhaps, but that's why (again, if I were running things) I would say Osama was dead, so that everyone he knows personally would feel safe and secure knowing that Osama couldn't talk to anyone. Facts could be corroborated, and then repeat the process until the truth comes out.  If this were the case, I would have released photos of Osama "dead," covered with Hollywood makeup.  And frozen in place with a hint of curare.

But that would be me.  I don't mean to spread conspiracy theories.  I'm probably ahead of the curve on the tinfoil hat brigade.  And if they aren't there yet, they have a conspiracy, gratis.  That he's dead means that we would have to rely on whatever paperwork was lying around in his immediate vicinity.  I'm not encouraged, but I may just be a pessimist.

Now, there have been philosophers who have argued there must be a Hell, if only because there are some crimes so insidious that it cries out for justice.  If there weren't an afterlife, the sheer horror of these crimes would create one, just for those particular bastards.

I believe that Osama is in for a surprise.  Not even for a Christian deity.  But for something else. 

Looking at the Koran a moment, there is Sura 81, “When the girl, buried alive, is asked what what crime she is slain … ” and it goes on for a very long while. Sura 81 is “the Cessations,” and deals with the punishment of the wicked on Judgment day … and it has nothing to do with Skynet.

I've read that particular verse (Sura 81: 8-9) interpreted by a mullah as being a matter of "God will punish the murderer of children, for children have committed no crime." In Sura 5, “the Table”, that those who fight against God or "His Apostle," thereby bringing disorder to the world should be exiled, or be crucified. Considering how many Islamofacist terrorists have butchered plenty of children, and their fellow coreligionists, if they were to be looking at the whole thing literally, Osama would have been nailed to a set of 2x4s by his own people.  And does inviting the United States military to come down on parts of the Middle East like the hand of God count as spreading disorder?

But, at the end of the day, Osama was just a guy conveniently clipping lines from the Koran for his own convenience.  He didn't like Western Culture.  And the way he went about it, if anyone were honest, would have gotten him killed under the culture he claimed to fight for.

If atheists are right, Osama is nothingness now.  If believers are right, he is either in a purgatory for the insane, or in Hell.  Unless he discovered a sudden desire for forgiveness before the end.  It's possible.

Though I doubt it.

Short Story by Memo. The first Pius promo

One of the things I've been doing during my time away was working on a novel called A Pius Man.  It fell under more Catholic than Conservative.  Though it gets more political as time goes on.

Here was a promo in the form of a memo from the head of Vatican Intelligence to the head of Papal Security, with attached resume.

********************************************

Memo
From: Msgr. Xavier O'Brien, SJ [XO@vatican.va]
To: Commander Giovanni Figlia, Vatican Office of Vigilance [Vigiles@vatican.va]
RE: Training.

Giovanni,

You will remember our conversation of the 21st relating to the Pope's idea of training the locals for self-defense. Attached, you will find the resume of a security specialist who has been recommended to us for this purpose. He is an American, and a former stuntman—what better way to guarantee nonlethal combat than from someone who had to restrain himself in his job?

-XO

*******************************************
From:Giovanni Figlia. [Vigiles@vatican.va]
To: Msgr. Xavier O'Brien, SJ [XO@vatican.va]
RE: Training.

Msgr. O'Brien,

I do not know what to make of your proposal. As I understand it, His Holiness wants the priests and the nuns to be trained in nonlethal combat. I understand, given his days spent in Uganda and the Sudan, he is concerned about someone coming after him. I understand, also, that he remembers that Ali Agca was first apprehended by a nun when he shot Pope John Paul II before the Guard could get a hold of him, and he would like the next nun to try such a thing to be trained for it. I understand this.

But did you READ this resume before sending it to me? He lists his resume by property damage!! And what are those numbers next to each job in his work experience?

-Gianni

**********************************************
From: Msgr. Xavier O'Brien, SJ [XO@vatican.va]
To: Giovanni Figlia. [Vigiles@vatican.va]
RE: Training.

Giovanni,

As I said before, this man had been recommended to Josh personally by a dear and trusted friend of the Vatican. Yours is not to reason why....nor is it to finish the rest of the quote...simply evaluate him.

The numbers you ask about are the people killed during each mission. He wants no one to be confused about what he does. Rather commendable, don't you think?

-XO.


*****************************************
SEAN ALOYSIUS P. RYAN
93-20 RODEO DR, CA 11002
347-990-6669
SAPR@SAPRassoc.net

OBJECTIVE:
To serve with honor, to protect my client, his or her principles, and to end whatever threat is presented. When I am done, the client should be well aware of proper security provisions, weapons, tactics, and should have no need of myself or my personnel. I am currently seeking a position where I can quickly make significant contributions

EDUCATION: Autodidact.

HONORS/AWARDS:
1999: Stuntman of the Year Award;
1999: Presidential Scholarship, St. John’s University Honors Program, (award declined)
1997-2002: Craziest Stuntman of the Year award.
2001: Craziest Stunt of the Year award; Phi Eta Sigma, National Freshman Honor Society

TRAINING.
1989-Present: Krav Maga training, under Michael Blitz, Kombat Masters of Long Island (Expert Level)
1989: Weapons training by FBI Agent Alice West (Family Friend)
1997: Quantico Defensive Driving Course, by Agent Emily Tierney (Mother)
1997: Tutoring with Special Agent Candice Delong (family friend)

WORK EXPERIENCE
2000-2002: Lord of the Rings, Stuntman.
January, 2003: Bodyguard, Director Stephen S*******g, Singer Barbara S*******d, (0)
March 2003-Present: CEO, Sean A.P. Ryan and Associates.
April 2003: Bodyguard, Actor Phillipe Nero (est 5, house destroyed)
June 2003: Bodyguard, Actress Mira Gajic (est 40+)
September 2003: Bodyguard, Natalie Boatman (est 50+, Frat house destroyed)

PERSONAL STRENGTHS:
Excellent oral communication skills and interrogation techniques…able to work well with people at all levels with good feedback techniques to assure proper communication…can analyze problems and quickly generate viable solutions… efficient time management abilities…organized and disciplined…excellent interpersonal skills…team player… high-energy level…reliable…have synthesized vast quantities of material and expressed them in audience-friendly form.

PERSONAL:
26, In excellent health, no children, willing to consider travel/relocation.
References available upon request.

It's been a while, but I'm back.

It's a sad, sad day when you forget your own login ... and that you forget that you ever had a blog. 

It's even sadder when everything has been so reworked, you have to agree to the terms of agreement again.

But I'm back.

I'm not sure if anyone's listening anymore, but I'm here.

Guest Blog: Murder in the Vatican Author Ann Margaret Lewis.

Welcome to the blog for my novel A Pius Man.



The Good News: No Snarky Theology this week.  After Communion, Lent, Sex, and Evolution, I'm taking a break.



The Even Better News: Today, we have a guest blog from Murder in the Vatican author Ann Margaret Lewis.



Since Murder in the Vatican deals with tales from the Sherlock Holmes canon that involve Holmes working with Leo XIII, I asked if she could blog about history in fiction, religious historical character in fiction, or "something like that".   As you can see, I was very helpful about picking out a topic for her.



The below was the result.



For the record, I have not doctored or altered her text in any way.  In fact, the only "edit" I made was that she insert some hyperlink footnotes to some of her statements.



And, here we go.

With Religious Characters, Honesty is the Best Policy

Ann Margaret Lewis

You can’t help but notice: people of religious faith make popular villains—especially with secular publishers and film studios. From The Three Musketeers and Hunchback of Notre Dame, to DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons. From the Godfather series, to even Charles Dickens’ Pickwick Papers. From Voltaire’s Tartuffe, to TV shows like Showtime’s Borgias and films, comic books and animated films like Happy Feet. The list goes on and on.



So it’s safe to say that making a villain a person of religious conviction isn’t an unusual convention. A great source of conflict and interest is a character who goes against their own supposed principles, or warps them to their own ends. And in any case, to many in the secular world, someone who believes something to the exclusion of all else, someone who isn’t a relativist, has to be close-minded bigot, right?



On the contrary, having principles and sticking by them does not always mean that. Real people are not so cut and dried. What one needs to be, when creating characters and even creating their villains, is honest. Otherwise, the whole convention just gets to be….well…cliché.



When I wrote Murder in the Vatican, I did my best to portray Pope Leo XIII in a way that was, I hope, honest. I would be just as honest in writing about a shameful pope like Alexander VI. But I wasn’t interested in a crummy pope. I’ll leave that for Showtime to cover (yawn). Our secular culture is so hungry to see religious figures as corrupt, they rewrite history to try to turn those who were fine people into villains—as is this case of the pope of this blog, Venerable Pius XII. And not just he, but Benedict XVI as well—if he isn’t a Nazi (here Benedict’s the story in his own words), then he’s a protector of paedophiles (never mind that he was one of the one’s trying to do right in that regard).



So it stands to reason that I decided to do something—well—different—to go against the grain. The religious folks in my book aren’t the villains. While, Pope Leo is a man of his time, he is also a man of the future in thought. He was a son of a noble family, quite different from his predecessor and successor (Pius IX and Piux X) both of whom came from humbler beginnings. Perhaps that is why Leo has not been put on the sainthood track, though his care for the poor and the working class was legendary. But I realized through simple research, all I had to do was write Leo as he was to the best of my ability to have an interesting character.



Sherlock Holmes himself says in the story “A Case of Identity”—“Life is infinitely stranger than the mind of man can invent.” I would suggest to the would-be storytellers of the world that before you go with the tired cliché of a corrupt religious character, try making them three dimensional, tell the truth about them. Give them a point of sympathy, for most humans have one. It is far more satisfying for your readers/viewers (not to mention less bigoted).

About the Author: Ann Margaret Lewis

Born and raised in Waterford, Michigan, Ann Margaret Lewis attended Michigan State University, where she received her Bachelor's degree in English Literature. She began her writing career writing tie-in children’s books and short stories for DC Comics. Before Murder in the Vatican: The Church Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes, she published a second edition of her book, Star Wars: The New Essential Guide to Alien Species, for Random House.

Ann is a classically trained soprano, and has performed around the New York City area. She has many interests from music to art history, to theology and all forms of literature. She is the President of the Catholic Writers Guild, an international organization for Catholic Writers and the coordinator of the Catholic Writers Conference LIVE. After living in New York City for fifteen years, Ann moved to Indianapolis, Indiana with her husband Joseph Lewis and their son, Raymond. Together they enjoy their life in the heartland.

From Comic books readers and Scifi fans, to James Patterson and back. Why anyone can enjoy a Pius Man

[Author's note: this was originally going to be a note on Marketing. It didn't turn out that way.]

What do you call a book chock full of hundred year old conspiracies, dangerous priests, psychotic mercenaries, operatives trained to kill practically from birth, international political intrigue, a terrorist plot, and a wide ranging collection of protagonists the likes of which the world hasn't seen since the team that took out Dracula?

You call it my book A Pius Man.

Now, who should read it? On the face of it, it seems like yet another in a long line of bad Da Vinci Code ripoffs that have come out in legion since Dan Brown's super-hyped novel hit the scene an interminable amount of time ago. However, while my book has conspiracies and religion, that's more or less where the similarities end. There will be no puzzles, the French will not be a threat, and no one will spend dozens of pages finding their way out of an art museum.

That said, there are some people who just don't read thrillers. Understandable, it's a term so generic you can toss a net over a whole host of authors... some of whom probably should have a net thrown over them anyway, just to be safe. However, when a field is as vast as the comic-bookish feel of Clive Cussler's NUMA novels, to the theoretical science of James Rollins, to a Barry Eisler novel, half of which takes place in the head of his protagonist, assassin John Rain. It's almost as diverse a group as public Catholic figures—as Oscar Wilde used to say: Here Comes Everybody. Can't call it a historical thriller, because then it will be mistaken for a period peace like the Sharpe's novels of Bernard Cornwell—I wouldn't mind having his audience, but they might feel gypped to find it set in the 21st century.

So, who the hell should read this book?

Comic book fans: My first agent drew parallels between the team of protagonists and the Justice League—possibly since this is the most international team since the original Dracula. One character has already been compared to Deadpool—of the comic, not the film. Throw in adversaries who seem preternaturally strong, fast, and trained... well, it's not like fighting the Hordes of Hydra, but my villain isn't exactly the Red Skull. Some are as serious as a police procedural, and some might as well have wanted to be Doc Savage when they grew up. One of them even works with “Middle Earth's Most Wanted Elven Assassin,” and no, I'm not kidding.

Science Fiction fans—who will hopefully forgive me for calling it “SciFi” above: Key pieces of this story involve NLW technology. Or, in standard English, non-lethal weaponry. Microwave cannons that emit plasma beams, tazer beam weapons, gases, explosives; if it's been mentioned, or appeared in a semi-realistic video game, it's probably in there. Throw in the laser-keyboards and the microwave microphones, you can outfit a small Sharper Image store.

Spy fans: International intrigue? Got it. Shadowy figures? Check. Conspiracy theories? At least five of them, and three are right. We also have: the obligatory evil Cardinal; a pale, silver haired priest with commando training (not to be confused with an albino, of course); the Jesuits, the Opus Dei, and the Knights Templar all show up, just so I can play with some of the old cliches

Readers of history: Yes, A Pius Man actually has historical facts. Literally, they happened. This is a book where the history presented in its pages can be footnoted. I know this because the original draft had footnotes. It was suggested that I take them out... however, I still have the bibliography in the back.

People who like intelligent destruction: There's an assassination on page two, an explosion on page three, a wrecked car by page seven, and a mercenary with a resume that reads like scripts of the A-Team. We'll ignore the shootout on the Spanish Steps in the armored SUV. Death, property damage, and utter ruination are always good for an audience. It worked for four Die Hard films.

Political folk: As much as I loathe to admit it, there's politics in this novel. It goes to motivation for the various and sundry parties. Besides: how do you negotiate being a Catholic—universal—Church? Unlike being a superpower, like the United States, you can't pick and choose who you associate with just because they're valuable to you. If that were the case, I wouldn't have a friend whose uncle is a missionary in China. And what happens when you put an African Pope who's to the right of Attila the Hun into the middle of this particular hurricane?

At the end of the day, the only people who should probably NOT read A Pius Man are those who expect a novel by way of Mitchner, or Clavell. Half of the book is filled with thoughtful, drawn out characters who are trying to think their way through the problem at hand. The other half of the book is filled with various and sundry creative ways to lay waste to large parts of Rome—from shooting up the Spanish Steps to trashing Leonardo Da Vinci airport.

Oh, and there's a love story in there, too.

And this is just the first book. Book two is the fallout, and countermoves by those bad guys who survive book one. Book three is where I recreate the Battle of Thermopylae.... if the 300 had possessed remote-detonated landmines.

Anyway, if you or any of your friends might enjoy anything listed above, you might want to join the fan page, or invite them to tag along. Or both.

2400+ Iraqi war dead

World War II


The battle of Okinawa (April 1-July 2) - 50,000 American 200,000 Japanese dead

To retake the Philippians from the Japanese - 60,000 dead

Iwo Jima- 6821 American dead estimated 20,000+ Japanese dead.

D-Day- Omaha Beach- 3,000 people in 12 hours.

The Vietnam war. - 50,000 (20/day)

According to the worst war numbers I can find-- from, of all places, a site called antiwar.com -- total dead in the Iraq war on the American side is 2743. Dead from combat: 2235.

What I can't find anywhere are the numbers of the dead in Afghanistan. I did a search, and all I got were Iraq body count sites. I needed to ask a military expert I'm friends with, and he estimates between 350-500, although he thinks it might be even lower than 350. Essentially, it is lower than any war the US has ever fought.

Now, I have a question. People say nothing about the dead in Afghanistan. They do not honor the fallen in Iraq, but carp about the body count. Yet, we have sacrificed less blood in this entire war than in any major battle in World War II.

We lost more men on D-Day- June 6th, 1944- than in the ENTIRE 9/12/01- 10/9/06 timeframe. We lost more people on September 11th than in the whole war.

Why is it that the American dead in Iraq is worth more than the American dead in any other battle? Why is it that protestors crying out about simple numbers care more for Americans than for Iraqis? Why are Iraqis not worth dying for? What makes the Iraqi people LESS special?

Iraqis are so "useless" to the body counters that I've only seen "Iraqi civilians dead" counted... when they count terrorists killed. Are Iraqi civilians really considered the moral equivalent of the terrorists who kill them?

Every human life is precious, every one is special. American soldiers volunteer to be in harm's way. Even a man like Casey Sheehan, son of Cindy Sheehan, believed this, and deliberately stated that he fought for Iraqis.

The US shed blood for Philippinos, Japanese, German Jews, Soviets. Why not Iraqis?

For every one US soldier who has died, approximately 1,000 Iraqis died during Saddam's reign. Are they not worth it?

Even if the most wild, borderline psychotic numbers about Iraqi civilians dead are accurate, [50,000, from http://www.iraqbodycount.net/], taking into account that Saddam killed 80,000 people per year, we have still saved 190,000 civilians. Are they not worth it?

If you truly hate the war, and you cite the body count, what are you saying? Are you saying that Iraqis aren't equal to our men and women? Are you pleading a humanitarian cause for soldiers who volunteered to go into harm's way instead of civilians who get killed by dictators or terrorists?

The lives of our soldiers are not to be thrown away lightly. But to devalue what they fight for, to dismiss the Iraqis being defended, you devalue them. They're in the field to defend the Iraqi people.

People who cite the death toll say they do it to support the troops, but there are troops who want to stay and finish the job. Do they support them? Do these people truly and honestly support and honor THEM?

No honor is given them by throwing Molotov cocktails at police officers to protest the war.

Or by trying to set fire to buildings to "support the troops."

Or by rewriting what our soldiers say.

May I ask, for those of you who cite the death toll as a starting point to rally against the war, why?

I would submit that those people do not give a tinker's damn about the soldiers, but they feel that reducing soldiers to numbers would be good for emotional shock value. Could it be possible that they do not actually belittle the lives of the Iraqis saved, but also the lives of the soldiers lost? After all, how much could a a soldiers death be worth if the lives of 1,000 Iraq civilians just barely equal his life? Isn't his death worthless because the people he died for are all but worthless?

And could it be that these people, so eager to "bring the troops home," care nothing for the dead in Afghanistan? They don't even count in the news cycles. By this math of the human life, as calculated above, does this mean that soldiers who die in Iraq are worth more than those who die in Afghanistan? In which case, how much must an American soldier be worth in Afghani lives?

I would submit that the dead are worth more than their weight in gold, and that the people they've died for are worth just as much. I would also suggest that the protesters who hurl the body count out like so many cold and callous numbers do not care what happens, as long as their agendas are secured.

Uranium, Wilson, Niger, and Iraq.

I came across an odd little fact recently. Several, to tell the truth. Most of them having to do with Joe Wilson, the person who tried to speak "Truth to power" at the Bush administration.

You may remember this little problem a while back. The story goes like this: Joe Wilson, Ambassador to Iraq during the Iraq war (1991), expert in the Middle East, is sent by Dick Cheney's office to go to Niger to find out whether or not Saddam has tried to procure Uranium from them. Wilson reports that there was no such attempt. After that, the evil Bushhitler administration sandbags Wilson, and blows the cover of his secret agent wife, Valerie Plame, because the evil Bush administration must cover their asses about their lies.

Um…problem.

Where to start…how about with the fact that Joe Wilson was NEVER an Ambassador. Look up in a Lexus Nexus search through the NYTimes for Wilson during 1991. His title was NOT Ambassador, it was "Deputy Chief of Mission." The Times described him as being more like a building superintendent, making sure the janitorial staff was fully stocked. He's such a Middle East expert, he speaks NONE of the languages.

Dick Cheney's office hadn't heard of Joe Wilson when he popped up claiming to have proof that Bush lied, kids died. In fact, no one was entirely certain why Joe Wilson, who was unemployed before being sent to Niger, was sent in the first place. He speaks none of the local languages, has zero skills in terms of investigation or spy skills. Basically, it became a matter of "Who sent this schlub?"

Enter the wife.

On his approved papers for Wilson's trip to Niger, there's one name that sticks out on the forms—the name of Valerie Plame, his wife, a CIA desk jockey. Her name was blown by someone named "Scooter" Libby— an underling in the VPs office, who claimed he didn't know what her ranking was. He had heard the name of Plame all over the beltway, so he naturally assumed that Valerie's CIA employment record wasn't a secret. Scooter made the assumption that Wilson's trip to Africa was a make-work project by Plame in an attempt to get the husband out of the house for a while, and said as much.

Valerie Plame's status with the CIA is "classified." However, that's the status of everyone down to and including the janitorial staff. She is not a covert agent. She took the bus to Langley every morning. Any idiot with a bus pass getting off at the next stop would know who she works for. Then again, most covert agents who don't want to be noticed also tend to shy away from Vanity Fair photospreads, like Ms. Plame.

Almost two and a half years later, the most they could get on "Scooter" was purgery—which, in a federal court, is defined as being interrogated one day, and give a slightly different answer to the same question when you're asked two years later.

Did I miss anything…oh, yes, the crucial, all important part—the uranium from Niger. The most important part is, "Was Wilson right?"

Wilson's finding were covered in the proof that Saddam was going for nukes. In fact, Wilson was too stupid to realize what he was saying.
Reading Wilson's report, you notice that all Saddam's agents in Niger were doing was to "increase trade with Niger," and "increase exports from Niger." After a simple AOL search, I looked up what DOES Niger export? I found SESRTCIC
Guess what the major export of Niger is?
Guess what industry employs over HALF of Niger's population and income?
One guess is all you need.
Uranium.
There's also a nice little book written by the head of Saddam's nuclear program from the late 1990s called "Saddam's Bomb Maker." It's remaindered now, but you should be able to find it in any Edward R. Hamilton bookstore.
Add this to the fact that they've been hauling out Uranium from Iraq by the ton [previous post], and I wonder exactly what Wilson will be doing with his spare time.
I hope a jail sentence.

Iraq WMDs-- for those who asked.


For those of you who've asked about one of the WMDs mentioned in my last column, I suggest reading the below. I found this while going through my old email.

U.S. HAULED TONS OF URANIUM FROM IRAQ

July 8, 2004 -- The United States secretly shipped nearly two tons of low-enriched uranium which could be used for making dirty bombs out of Iraq last month, officials revealed.

In addition to the uranium, approximately 1,000 highly radioactive items were transferred last month from Iraq to an undisclosed U.S. Energy Department laboratory for analysis.

The airlift ended on June 23, five days before the United States transferred sovereignty to Iraq's new interim government.

U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham called the secret airlift "a major achievement" in an attempt to "keep potentially dangerous nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists."

But U.N. officials squawked at the removal, saying the International Atomic Energy Agency never OK'd the move.

"The American authorities just informed us of their intention to remove the materials, but they never sought authorization from us," an IAEA official said.

However, U.S. nuclear authorities said yesterday they had Iraqi approval and didn't need U.N. authorization. Post Wire Services

A really short history of Terrorism against US
Category: News and Politics


For those people who seem to think that Al-Qaida is the only people on the planet who want to kill us (and who think that Osama, himself, personally, is the mastermind and key to every plot on the planet), I suggest a brief bit of history.



November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, following Democrat Jimmy Carter's masterful foreign policy granting Islamic fanaticism its first real foothold in the Middle East. Six months later, Saddam Hussein takes over Iraq, confident that Carter will be just as active against him.

1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years.

April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans.

October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines.

December 1983: Muslim extremists (al-Dawa) blew up the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing five and injuring 80.

September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen.

December 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over.

June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah-- is anyone else detecting a theme?) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac.

October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard. The Italians let them get away, and they were later captured by American forces, and again let go by the Italians.

December 1985: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed airports in Rome and Vienna, killing 20 people, including five Americans.

April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier.

December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.

(Then came an amazing pause in Muslim extremists' war on America when we won the Cold War, and thus depriving Islamic terrorists of their Soviet sponsors. Taking out terror sponsors, whether it's the Soviet Union or Iraq, slows them down, what a thought!)

February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, with involvement of friendly rival al-Qaida) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.

Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI's lower Manhattan headquarters.

November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian "Party of God"-- which translates as Hezbollah) explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.

June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, with al-Qaida) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.

August 1998: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.

October 2000: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.

Sept. 11, 2001